Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_fx_enabled

Idempotent

Enable or bypass a specific FX on a track by specifying track and FX indices. Set enabled to true to activate or false to bypass.

Instructions

Enable or bypass an FX (enabled=False bypasses it without removing it).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "fx_index": "<fx_index>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_fx_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
fx_indexYes0-based FX index within the track chain
enabledYesTrue to enable, False to bypass

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate mutability and idempotency. The description adds that bypassing does not remove the FX, a helpful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, directly states the action, no unnecessary words. Perfectly front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient. Could mention that track and FX must exist, but not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and describes each parameter adequately. The description adds no extra information about parameters beyond what is already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('enable or bypass') and resource ('an FX'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_remove_fx and reaper_set_fx_param.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States when to use (enable/bypass an FX) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or list alternatives. However, sibling context makes it clear this is for toggling enabled state.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools